Innovation (technologicallly driven) – Page 27

Still, 3LD is the 4th leg

This, not as much a monster under the bed as it is a monster elsewhere; Three Lines of Defense (quod non).

I’ve discussed the utterly nonsensical, totalitarian bureaucratic, lie of its utility already over and over again, but the thought — through encounter in daily practice so often still — returns every now and then. And then, one realizes: Three Lines of ‘Defense’ (quod non) are not the third, but the fourth leg of a flipover stand. Yes, indeed, you hardly see that ever — for a reason: Where the third leg is flimsy already and certainly so compared to the stability provided by the first, essential, two legs, any fourth might impress but destroys stability of the whole!
Yes, as three ground point define a surface hence stable stance on any irregular surface (and, hence again, are completely sufficient), four such touch points are very hard to get stable, onto a plane surface. Therefore, the fourth leg destabilizes the whole shazam, undoes the effectiveness of the third. Now, two are bungling.

And no, not because a flipover has three legs does that reflect TLD; the first two legs are equally required and face us, thus giving the thing its purpose which is completely, fundamentally, different from TLD where there’s three lines behind each other that only ‘protect’ (quod non) against regulatory oversight by massaging all embarrassment away through ever more dubious language. When you don’t see the fundamental of that difference, you may or may not be hopeless. Stop dragging the IQ average of whatever group you consider yourself part of, down so low.

I now rest my case.

[‘Transparency’ and building material? We see right through that both, Chanel!
(PC Hooftstraat)]

Last night a … saved me (updated)

As @swiftonsecurity (and of course @meneer of #ditchcyber fame) and others may improve since the rhythm is only almost perfect, already this:

[To the music but outdated lyrics of Indeep — but what style …
(Hey @ESCIA is that you with the mic ..?)]

You gotta reboot ~~get up~~
You gotta reload ~~get on~~
You gotta restore ~~get down~~ girl
You know you drive me #DIV/0! ~~crazy~~ baby
You’ve got me turning to another OS ~~man~~
Called you on the VOIP ~~phone~~

No one’s pinging back ~~home~~
Baby why ya leave me all >dev/null ~~alone~~
And if it wasn’t for the endless GitHub surfing ~~music~~
I don’t know what I’d do

Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~
Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~ from a broken pipe ~~heart~~
Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~
Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~ with a patch ~~song~~

You know I hopped into my notepad ~~car~~
Didn’t need to leave the coffee shop ~~get very far no~~
Because I had you on my stash of data-breached X-rated pics ~~mind~~
Why only give you a ticket and secretly close it immediately ~~be so unkind~~?

You’ve got your hapless users ~~women~~ all around
All around this AD ~~town~~, boy
But I was trapped in the SLA from hell ~~love~~ with you
And I didn’t know what to do
But when I turned on my RTFManual ~~radio~~
I found out all I needed to key in ~~know~~
Run the diagnostics kit ~~Check it out~~

Hey listen up to your local information risk / security management professional
You better hear what he’s got to type so fast you can’t keep track ~~say~~
There’s not a problem that I can’t fix
Cause I can do it in the rogue exploit suite ~~mix~~
And if your crappy ol’ XP machine ~~man~~ gives you trouble
Just you step away from the keyboard ~~move~~ out on the double
And you don’t let it trouble your ‘brain’ ~~brain~~
Cause away goes PEBKAC ~~troubles~~
Down the drain
I said away goes PEBKAC ~~troubles~~
Down the drain

Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~
There’s not a problem that I can’t fix
Cause I can do it in the rogue exploit suite ~~mix~~
There’s not a problem that I can’t fix
Cause I can do it in the rogue exploit suite ~~mix~~

Quite an improvement indeedp … And leaving you with, of course:

I am Satoshi Nakamato

… If only to dilute the discussion. And to all be Spartacus. Let the Craigs be the fools (not even meant lightly; rather pejorative here) they are. The absolute hard-math sides of Bidkoyn coming full circle to the mysteries to be kept mysteries for the very sake of it for once you dumb.ss! of its origins.

To keep it real:

[Mining precedes, but the use side is in transport ..? <Think that one over> at Utrecht]

Miss Quote: Dice

Well, not really a misquote straight away, but on this Tuesday Miss Quote day (not), did not Einstein say

The Lord doesn’t play dice.

Which is often interpreted to have him say that the indetermination of the endless but not limitless (or was it the other way around?) number and times of quantum changes aren’t feasible and some deterministic model will eventually be found to be able to actually predict, no chance calculus or Schrödinger’s herd of cats probabilities, all of Nature’s developments as All is predetermined. Where E is made out as a … well, on this point simpleton unbeliever, proven wrong by quantum mechanics / dynamics / what-have-we.

Of course, this is the same E of the Time is that not all things happen at once — demonstrated to be at the core of just any religions’ deepest insights, closest as anyone can get to spiritual return/back-integration/solution (in)to one’s Maker. Even at a mundane level, he was brought to doubt his cosmological constant and then this happened. And this.
Hence, we are reminded that E’s dice game denial was, at the core, not fully original. Emerson’s Nature (ch VI, Idealism, line 37; 1904 edition) has:

God never jests with us, and will not compromise the end of nature by permitting any inconsequence in its procession.

Which I consider to be so similar that comparable interpretation is fully allowed, and the differences may be telling or not (insignificance). And with the disownment (yes that’s a word, since I use it) of the relevance to dunces’ quantum blah.

So, I’ll leave you with:

[Poor (understanding) man’s Infinity; Bergen-Noord]

DroneSF

Among the more thinking part of you, there probably has been some ideas on the ‘Joint (not so much) Strike (not by a long mile yet) Fighter (not or by proxy of lobbyists for its program)’.
Then, why wouldn’t forward-looking nations develop much more of an Future Strike Joystick; an air fleet of drones ..? How incredibly much more efficient isn’t such a fleet, with ridiculous amounts of safeguards for safe platform/pilot return (in that order of importance) ditched for efficiency, robustness by the numbers and failsafe-testing ..?
The efficiency, for not having to care about pilot’s safe return hence many over-redundant systems need not be needed. The robustness, mainly in numbers, but also in safety / security systems being bolted on easily as weight savings to be traded in, are aplenty already. And failsafe-testing leading to much more robust systems anyway — but with the robustness gains there mainly going on in the G/A comms. The AFBs could house so many more of these smaller-size things, with ample comms and/or rapidly-deployable forward bases; with possibly much shorter runways hence enabling many more bases without even increased (better spread, too) noise levels for the dorks.

Two things, then, from a Dutch perspective.
One, why not resurrect Fokker to build many more full-fledged squadrons of these than ever had in the RNLAF? They have all the experience with composite materials still, and have plentiful highest-trained development, build and maintenance staff available as well or at short notice. Let’s dub it the G-1B for reference to unsurpassed excellence.
Two, in the mean time the current F16 ‘fleet’, hardly operable anymore by atrocious ‘savings’ i.e. dumbest of budget cuts, can be extended to Block 60 or V versions and all these drones be developed and bought, at a sliver of the costs of the JSF program as spent already let alone when the actual handful will have to be purchased (with ridiculous maintenance costs attached).
Three, against your Yes But: The JSF is still so far from delivery that the G-1B could be here before it ..!

Am I romantic in looking ahead instead of stumbling forward with yesterday’s doctrines in a future that already now have been surpassed ..? Yet again,

[Ah, Delft… Where another, this even today, undervalued product comes from]

Untrained accountants

Somewhere in Rise of the Robots (approximately p.253, 2nd line from the top), ever infamous [but very, very right] Carr is ideaquoted about pilots not getting enough experience with flying and (well, mostly: continue to keep on …) flying in adverse conditions and hence are paradoxically (much) less capable to handle the few exceptional situations for which they are kept aboard on ever more fully automated flights. [Except from the passengers’ comfort, but if only they knew the previous…] The Shallows, indeed…

Now, how would this compare to accountancy …? Ever encountered an assistant auditor that would recognize, let alone be able to do himself, double-entry bookkeeping ..? Which is of course already quite fully automated or will be in the very near future. All of accountancy/audit (in many worlds except a few slackers, this can and will be used mixedly though the latter is so much more ..!) that is stacked on top of such simple things, like checking on the bookkeeping let alone at the other end of the spectrum concluding that ‘the books’ represent a true and fair view (to the dime) of business performance (sic; more that just having debit=credit; author knows of a bank where this proved literally Impossible to do, with all the latest overfully automated bookkeeping information systems with a margin of € 1B e-ve-ry month, wiping the slate clean with a one-sided journal entry…!!), will come into question qua ability — in particular where the once usual decades of training was needed to establish sufficient experience to be able to, with an error margin always still!, declare the True and Fair parts, and now, such experience can be had less and less, with the disruption starting from the bottom with audit automation turning into big data (process) analyses supported by IT audits and what have we.

There simply aren’t the entry-level experience gainers jobs anymore; any complete-greenhorn (and uni grads are that, more and more it seems; just ask them to write a simple business report…) will have to jump to an immediate medior-level performance level. So what does one end up with? Mostly n00bs posing as l33ts. Posing, as content-wise performance is … well …

Oh well, it’ll get worse, much worse before it gets better. And:

[Graciously having opened my back garden to the public (but this is Het Loo of course)]

This time will be different

… If only for the following reason(s):

So far, Technology has been developed by humans, willy-nilly mostly as also fitting in the Selfish Memes sort of way (including Blackmore’s Meme Machine), to alleviate and overcome the very humans’ weaknesses that set us below a great many respective animals, and Nature.
Now, I(o)T slash AI (ASI) will soon be overcoming humans’ only few strengths in Thinking. At once leaving us vulnerable to become, at best, prey for <something> but with no place to hide (sic) nor any defenses…

So, this time will be different and the Luddites (actual sense, not the loom-smashing caricatures) will be right. For the one time they ‘need’ to be and then immediately need be no more. No more ‘but past technological innovations bringing temporary unemployment have all been overcome with growth of something new’. Read Martin Ford and you see that this will simply not be true — if only for the failure, this time of the Comparative Advantage mechanism but actually quite something more pervasively.
As a simple hint: What would you advise your 8yo nephew to be good at in school, to find … what kind of job or career later …!?

Don’t be discouraged! The End Is Nigh! Until it is:

[They look cute but will outdo you in an instant….; Het Loo]

Predicting fuzzy futures

As we approach another round of grand fuzziness in predictions of all sorts, e.g. for president’s elections in some corner of the world, it would be wise to not only take all (and I mean all) of Superforecasting to heart but also to consider helping extending the science of the trade.
By helping me out in finding pointers and content on, and subsequently developing on, the use of fuzzy logic in predictions. As ‘current’ truth values of future states of the world are all quite possible, and going forward even mutually exclusive states may, e.g. on some news, all become more likely, with combined likelihoods rising over 100%. Where FL can play a role to keep track. And we may have to revisit (practical use of) Markov chains with suitable noise-around-parameters built in… But let’s focus on FL first.
Of course, when the End Date, the horizon for some prediction timeslot nears, the choices will be driven to 100/0 — where the crazy idea of random selection (of ‘balls from a pot’) with replacement … with double replacement … [even tinkered with the idea of replacing the non-drawn colour with the drawn one every pick; was hard to think through] may come closer to the idea of starting with some hardly-educated guess and nudging either way on all news points as one goes along; doing a (much-)sort-of random walk from 50/50 to 100/0.

So, if you’d have info on the viability of either approaches, please do drop a note…! Already:

[Free city map dispenser; Delft]

Emerging degrees of privacy

Given that ‘privacy’ is a property that emerges from good Security, more particularly from Confidentiality (and Integrity), there’s two avenues to succeed in this field:

If quick and maybe even too dirty: Data minimalisation (as e.g., here, in Dutch)
Else (OR?): Fine-grained protection, also against the default Read all down the stack (user / end point / comms channels / applications / middleware / servers / storage — with the latter maybe crawling up and down the stack again when virtualizing in the cloud)
Because binary’s not my thing and keeping it real (i.e. (!) not being consistent) is: Would any of you have pointers to some science on possible degrees or levels of privacy ..?
The idea keeps floating around in my skull. Including degrees of invasion! Where sometimes, the required degree (as set by the subject) would be less than the degree for some government agency so everything goes … for this some data point only. Yes, Value creeps in as a boring subject but isn’t everything. Should be a field of study …?

Thanks anyway for all your pointers on the last item… (none); hence:

[It’s watching over your shoulder….! Het Loo]

Repeat: Trawling for noise

So… Legal developments go at glacial ‘speed’, thus mumbling critical oversight to sleep. Happened, once again, in NL. Mass collection (sic) of and trawling through all sorts of data ‘out there’ is free game for gov’t agencies.
NO the oversight committee will not do anything. Anyone saying so, plainly and simply lies under oath to overthrow the constitution (isn’t that high treason?)

But what will happen of course, is that those that in the past weren’t able to connect the dots (proven fact), will now be swamped in enormously bigger piles of noise data. At the very very best (??) they’ll find bucketloads of false positives — ruining perfectly normal, perfectly legally operating citizens’ lives, of course without any serious recourse or restitution of lost life’s pleasure and happiness…
And the false negatives will also explode, induced by the very ‘countermeasures’.
So, also those that propose and implement and work with such ‘solutions’ quod non, will be culpable to.

Oh well Or well was right. Plus:

[I don’t want or like, but do expect, a similar thing again; for different reasons but with no really different methods — Prinsenhof Delft ya’know]